Search Judgments

Constitution of India – Article 226 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the disqualification of the appellant, M/s. Surguja Bricks Industries Company, from a tender process for road construction issued by the Public Works Department (PWD) of Chhattisgarh. The appellant was disqualified because one experience certificate was from a joint venture, and the other did not meet the required contract value percentage.

The appellant argued that its experience as a partner in a joint venture should be considered, relying on a previous Supreme Court ruling (New Horizons Limited Vs.

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 ; The Constitution of India Article 226 – This case concerns a petitioner challenging the forfeiture of her Rs. 2.00 crore security deposit by the respondent bank. Pursuant to a Debts Recovery Tribunal order (implicitly under the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993), dated 18.06.2024, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 2.00 crore and pay the balance Rs.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 35 – This case concerns a dispute over rental arrears and eviction from a property leased for commercial purposes (running a hotel and lodge). The defendant appealed against concurrent judgments directing payment of arrears and compensation. The primary issue was whether the suit qualified as a ‘commercial dispute’ under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court analyzed Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act, emphasizing that agreements related to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce fall under the definition of ‘commercial dispute.’ The explanation to the section clarifies that actions for recovery of property or related monies do not disqualify it as a commercial dispute.

Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfers of Property (in Municipal Areas) Act, 2009 (Act 32 of 2009) – Section 3 – Partnership firm that purchased property in an auction conducted by the official liquidator and subsequently paid a 2% surcharge under protest when the registering officer demanded it during the registration of the sale certificate. The petitioner argued that the surcharge was illegally levied, citing previous court decisions. The respondents contended that the surcharge was valid under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2009, arguing that the sale certificate acquired the character of a conveyance upon registration, making it subject to the surcharge.

The court considered arguments based on the interpretation of “instrument” under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the applicability of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2009 to sale certificates.

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment Act), 1992 Section 217-A, 217-C,and 303(1) & Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Station) Building Rules, 1993 Rule 7(2) – This case concerns a writ appeal against a High Court order that directed the Commissioner of Udhagamandalam Municipality to grant building plan permission/license to the respondent. The appellant argued that the writ court misapplied the law, specifically Rule 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Station) Building Rules, 1993, which prohibits construction within 150 meters of reserve forests. The appellant presented that the land in question falls within 17 meters of a reserve forest. The respondent argued that the revised master plan approved by the government should supersede Rule 7(2).

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8, Rule 6A – This appeal concerns the maintainability of a counterclaim against a co-defendant in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant seeking specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The second and third defendants were later impleaded and raised a counterclaim against the first defendant, seeking the same land. The Trial Court allowed the counterclaim, and the High Court affirmed this decision.

 The Criminal Rules of Practice 2019 Rule 25(6) – This case originated from a Criminal Original Petition filed by an accused seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against him. The investigation was already completed, and a final report had been filed. The court initially declined to quash the FIR, advising the petitioner to challenge the final report. The court then noticed delays in taking the final report on file and requested a report from the Judicial Magistrate, revealing issues with e-filing procedures.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 19(b) and Section 16(c) – This case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an Agreement to Sell (ATS) for agricultural land in Karnataka. The original vendors had executed an ATS in favor of the original vendees in 2000, but later, in 2007, sold the land to subsequent purchasers. The original vendees filed a suit seeking specific performance of the ATS, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court but later decreed by the High Court in favor of the original vendees, which lead to these appeals before the Supreme Court.

The key issues before the Supreme Court were:

1.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – This case involves an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed Rs. 5,25,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the accused, disbelieving the complainant’s version and finding the accused’s version more probable.

Constitution of India – Article 17 – This case involves a Writ Petition filed seeking a Mandamus to allow the petitioner and his community (Dalits) to enter the Muthu Kolakki Amman Temple in Puthagaram Village, participate in worship and rituals, and permit the Temple Car to extend its route to the Dalit Colony during the Car Festival. The petitioner alleged resistance from upper-caste Hindus, despite the Temple being under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.

The District Collector’s report, following a court order, suggested that the extended route to the Dalit colony was feasible with minor repairs. The respondents contended that the existing route has been in practice for decades and also denied any discrimination.